[nuncEtedben]

India has taken forever (like two decades) to decide how it wants to replace its aging and almost obsolete Soviet-era Mig-21 fighter plane fleet. It got vendor interest from Boeing for the F/A-18 as well as from Lokheed Martin for the F-16, latest block design. Also in the running were Mig-35 from Russia, Swedish SAAB Gripen, and two other European fighters, French Rafale and the joint collaboration Eurofighter Typhoon.

The 126 (plus option for dozens more) fighters on order would amount to more than $10 billion and would keep the awardees manufacturing lines humming for five years easily, plus follow-on contracts for future maintenance and midlife upgrades for the planes.

So it's a strategic buy for India's armed forces. And I had long been thinking that in the end, it's going to be a toss-up between the American options and the old pal Russians and their cheap wares (that do last long, and Russians give the top technology available to them, don't hold back especially not to India...they hold back to China because China reverse engineers and domestically produces every single item after ordering a small number of originals).

Instead, the stupidity that is Indian leftist (Marxist-driven) current Central government, it has dropped all other options and left the two from Europe still standing...

A well-written piece on international strategy and what a dumb move this is...it'll impact U.S.-India relations for sure, and in a bad way I'm afraid. The U.S. ambassador to India has already resigned!

http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/201...nate-people-3/

[nuncEtedben]

NYT coverage of the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/bu...v&ref=business

Others are downplaying this contract, but I think since it's been a long time coming, and since fighter jets are always those sexy things that catch policy makers' eyes, in strategic sense, this was a blunder on Indian government's part.

It is true, however, that last time India needed spare parts for certain war fighting equipment during a time of crisis (a mini-war, basically), U.S. refused to supply those parts and so the war effort was grounded a bit and India had to rely on secondary suppliers. So it is understandable that India would not want to jeopardize a big part of its air force fleet to sudden and capricious embargoes imposed by U.S. government.

[AccusaJalsBub]

I'm far from a fighter buff, but my very limited understanding is that the capabilities of the eurofighter surpass the F15 and F15 family. The YF22(?-the one with true fly by wire and vector thrusting, etc) is the contemporary.

[nuncEtedben]

yeah, and India wanted the fly-by-wire for sure, since it is getting it in its domestic "light combat aircraft" design as such...that aircraft, btw, is powered by a GE F404 turbine (at least for now, until they get a fix for a domestic design).

Thrust-vectoring comes in handy in WVR situations, which aren't likely in this day... even so, larger fighter-bombers I imagine would be better served by it. The SU-30MKI in Indian service has the thrust vectoring engines, thanks to Russians.


Washington Post article gives a proper analysis of the situation:

U.S. companies bypassed in India fighter jet deal - The Washington Post

“I know that the aircrafts that met all the technical requirements included the American F-16,” said Pushpindar Singh Chopra, an aerospace analyst. However, he added that the Typhoon and Rafale are both new-generation aircrafts, and might come with fewer restrictions than the U.S. government would try to attach to any deal.

“Indian military establishment has some issues with the list of do’s and don’ts that come with American military purchases,” Chopra said. “There are too many checks and reporting that the American government subjects the buyer countries to. This is a bit annoying to Indians.”

Chopra said the reluctance by the United States to include electronic warfare systems in any sale might also have been problematic. “After all, a fighter aircraft is as good as its weapons,” he said. “These probably played a part in the decision, too.”

Defense and nuclear commerce are the big-ticket items in the growing strategic relationship between India and the United States.

But commercial contracts worth billions of dollars that were expected to arise out of the landmark nuclear deal signed in 2008 have yet to materialize, because of disagreement over India’s restrictive domestic nuclear liability law and bureaucratic delays in mandatory assurances that Indian companies will not export American nuclear technology to other countries.

Kanwal Sibal, a former Indian foreign secretary who was once the second-in-command at India’s embassy in Washington, said some U.S. political leaders had viewed the fighter-jet contract as “a test case for deepening strategic relationship and a return-gesture for the nuclear deal between the two nations.”

“The American political leadership had invested a lot of effort into this deal. ... They were openly giving the impression that India was obliged to give this deal to them,” Sibal said.

“India could either have made a political decision to give it to the Americans or go for an open international bid. India chose the latter.”

[nuncEtedben]

btw, the fighter at issue is F-16, not the older and heavier F-15.

F-16 is more of a dogfight type of plane. And both of them have undergone several technological upgrades to where they're not quite as old as the original 1970s vintage would make them sound.

McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[AccusaJalsBub]

btw, the fighter at issue is F-16, not the older and heavier F-15.

F-16 is more of a dogfight type of plane. And both of them have undergone several technological upgrades to where they're not quite as old as the original 1970s vintage would make them sound.

McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yea, I typoed my original reply...should've read "F15 and F16 families"

Washington Post article gives a proper analysis of the situation:

this rather eloquently sumarizes and connects a few dots that were rattling around in the back of my head.

[Mynameishappy]

Reading the article I assumed the issue in choosing was one of "support" for the planes in the instance of war. India is more likely to go to war with another US ally, Pakistan, and the US would probably support Pakistan, or at least withhold or delay support for India in a conflict with India based on its historical strategic ties to that country. So India would be at a disadvantage with US equipment. The same is true if India has a conflict with China. Russia and the Europeans are probably more willing to give India a better deal on fighters because of the chance of seeing the equipment in combat against Pakistan's US equipment.